Dismissed

M.Shanmugavadivu, v. the Executive Engineer

Madras HC7 Oct 2021WP/11884/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to orders granting permission for a respondent to construct a bridge on Government land. It held that since the land was not disputed and the bridge was for public use, the petitioner's rights were not infringed, dispensing with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner not entitled to any relief; connected petitions closed; no costs.

M.Shanmugavadivu, Vs the Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.11884 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2013

¶6

M.Shanmugavadivu

¶7

 ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

1.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bhavanisagar Dam Division, Water Resources Organisation, Bhavanisagar – 638 451, Erode District.

¶10

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Irrigation Sub Division, Coimbatore – 1.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Coimbatore – 18.

¶12

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Building, Coimbatore – 18.

¶13

5.Dr.L.P.Thangavel ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling
for the records relating to the impugned orders made in
Lr.No.Va.Pa/Ie.Va.A3/ Ko73/64M/2013 dated 12.02.2013 passed by
the 1st respondent and the order made in Na.Ka.No.17742/2012/A3
dated 25.02.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent quash the same.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

For Petitioner: Mr.N.Manokaran

¶17

ForRespondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
 Government Advocate
 [For R1 to R4]

¶18

 Mr.M.Sriram
 [For R5]

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The order impugned dated 12.02.2013 passed by the first
respondent and the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the third
respondent are under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶21

2. The petitioner states that there is a civil dispute
between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The petitioner has
filed a suit in O.S.No.770 of 2008 on the file of the Additional
District Court, Coimbatore for partition of the suit properties
into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share and
for the consequential relief of permanent injunction,
restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any
encumbrances over the suit properties.

¶22

3. The suit was decreed and the preliminary decree was
passed. The appeal suit was filed and the said appeal suit is
pending for adjudication. Under these circumstances, the 5th
respondent submitted an application for construction of a over
bridge to cross the River, so as to reach his property. The
permission was initially granted and it was cancelled due to the
objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter, once again,
it was considered and the permission was granted.

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that
the manner in which, the application submitted by the 5th
respondent was considered by the authorities is unusual and
within three days, they have granted such a permission in a
hurried manner for constructing a over bridge to cross the River
at the cost of the 5th respondent. It is contended that no
opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. In view
of the fact that the Civil Suit is pending, the petitioner is
entitled for an opportunity. Thus, the entire exercise and the
order impugned passed is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. When the Civil Suit is pending between the
parties and the preliminary decree was passed and against the
preliminary decree, the appeal suit is filed and pending, the
authorities ought not to have entertained the application filed
by the 5th respondent.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th
respondent made a submission that the proposed construction of
over bridge is not falling within the disputed property, which
is the subject matter of the suit and the appeal suit and
therefore, the petitioner is no way connected with the
permission and opportunity of hearing in such circumstances
would not arise at all.

¶26

6. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent states that
the permission was granted by imposing 10 conditions. As per the
conditions, the entire expenditure should be met out by the 5th
respondent and the bridge must be put in use for the public at
large and the bridge belongs to the PWD Department and the 5th
respondent cannot claim any ownership in respect of the bridge
proposed to be conducted at the cost of the 5th respondent. At
the outset, it is contended that permission was granted in the
public interest and the 5th respondent cannot claim any ownership
in respect of the construction of a over bridge on the River.

¶27

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents R1 to R4, relying on the counter affidavit filed
by the first respondents, made a submission that the respondents
1 to 4 are the Government officers and much concerned about the
larger public. The construction of bridge across the Kunutipathy
river in Government land will not affect the property of
Tmt.M.Shanmugavadivu. The first respondent has clearly stated
that the proposed bridge is going to be constructed in the
Government land and not in the disputed land. Further, it is
contended that permission given by the Government for
construction of bridge across any water bodies for agricultural
purposes will be used by any public and the bridge is the
property of the PWD after construction. The respondents 1 to 4
are not in any way connected with the private patta land holders
property.

¶28

8. It is unambiguously clarified by the respondents that
the proposed bridge across the River is going to be constructed
at the cost of the 5th respondent in the Government land. 10
Conditions are imposed. The proposed bridge is for the public
interest and for the common usage of the public at large. It is
further clarified that after construction, the bridge belongs to
the PWD Department and the 5th respondent cannot claim any right
over the bridge going to be constructed at the cost of the 5th
respondent.

¶29

9. This being the nature of conditions imposed for grant
of permission, this Court is of an opinion that the rights of
the petitioners are not violated. Further, the proposed bridge
is not going to be constructed in respect of the disputed land,
which all are the subject matter of the civil proceedings now
pending between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Under

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

these circumstances, the petitioner is to be construed as an
alien to the consideration deliberated by the competent
authorities and thus, there is no opportunity needs to be given
by the authorities as the rights of the petitioner has not been
infringed.

¶32

10. In view of the facts and circumstances, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief. If any other
grievance exists for the petitioner, it is for her to approach
the competent authorities.

¶33

11. With these observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

kak

¶39

To

¶40

1.The Executive Engineer,

¶41

 Public Works Department,
 Bhavanisagar Dam Division,

¶42

 Water Resources Organisation,
 Bhavanisagar – 638 451, Erode District.

¶43

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶44

 Public Works Department,
 Irrigation Sub Division,
 Coimbatore – 1.

¶45

3.The District Collector,
 Collectorate Building,
 Coimbatore – 18.

¶46

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Collectorate Building,
 Coimbatore – 18.

¶47

+1CC to M/s.N.Manokaran, Advocate, SR.No. 53116
+1CC to M/s.M.Sriram, Advocate, SR.No. 52986
+1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 53241

¶48

W.P.No.11884 of 2013

¶49

SPD(CO)
B.VC (27/10/2021)

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Shanmugavadivu, v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Shanmugavadivu, v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Loganathan Vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu

Mr.S.Raja, Vs The District Collector

C.Venkatraman, Vs The District Collector

J.P.R.Road Carriers, Vs the General Manager

The Federal Bank Ltd, Vs M/S.Zylog Systems Ltd.

Sundramoorthy Vs the Union of India